Obama the follower

[ajmccarrell]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/021613.php

The neat thing about a presidential race between two Senators is that voters can make direct comparisons between the candidates that otherwise are not possible. This year, the comparisons work in John McCain's favor.

McCain pushed for the "surge" in Iraq. Obama opposed it, saying it wouldn't work. When it worked, Obama said he knew it would work, but defended his vote anyway.

Two years ago, McCain warned that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in serious need of reform and he so-sponsored legislation to reform it. Obama did not support this legislation, which the Democrats blocked. Obama was near the top of the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and two executives from these outfits were among his campaign advisors.

McCain also had the right line on the Russian invasion of Georgia (though this was not a legislative issue). As Rudy Giuliani recounted at the Republican Convention, Obama waffled for a while and eventually adopted McCain's view. McCain led; Obama followed

Most recently, McCain figured out that he needed to get back to Washington to engage, and if possible provide leadership in, the momentous issue of the financial sector bailout. While McCain opted to help make something happen, Obama said he could be reached by phone if anything did happen.

Obama's position was untenable, so he eventually followed McCain back to Washington.

Hoping to cover for their "follower" of a presidential candidate, Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd.

Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House.

The Democrats counter the second point by saying that a majority of House Dems won't support a deal unless House Republicans provide "cover." But this argument raises more problems than it addresses. First, it is a serious condemnation of House Dems (too gutless to do what they think is right, even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Second it is a serious condemnation of Nancy Pelosi (too ineffective to whip her troops into line even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Third, it casts serious doubt on the wisdom of the deal that McCain is falsely accused of scuttling. If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need "cover" from House Republicans.

Fourth, the "cover" argument shows what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. The Dems complain (preposterously) that McCain has riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around. Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking why Obama hasn't helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Dems.

There's a reason why this question isn't being asked. Obama is lightweight from whom leadership is not, and should not, be expected.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/021613.php

The neat thing about a presidential race between two Senators is that voters can make direct comparisons between the candidates that otherwise are not possible. This year, the comparisons work in John McCain's favor.

McCain pushed for the "surge" in Iraq. Obama opposed it, saying it wouldn't work. When it worked, Obama said he knew it would work, but defended his vote anyway.

Two years ago, McCain warned that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in serious need of reform and he so-sponsored legislation to reform it. Obama did not support this legislation, which the Democrats blocked. Obama was near the top of the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and two executives from these outfits were among his campaign advisors.

McCain also had the right line on the Russian invasion of Georgia (though this was not a legislative issue). As Rudy Giuliani recounted at the Republican Convention, Obama waffled for a while and eventually adopted McCain's view. McCain led; Obama followed

Most recently, McCain figured out that he needed to get back to Washington to engage, and if possible provide leadership in, the momentous issue of the financial sector bailout. While McCain opted to help make something happen, Obama said he could be reached by phone if anything did happen.

Obama's position was untenable, so he eventually followed McCain back to Washington.

Hoping to cover for their "follower" of a presidential candidate, Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd.

Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House.

The Democrats counter the second point by saying that a majority of House Dems won't support a deal unless House Republicans provide "cover." But this argument raises more problems than it addresses. First, it is a serious condemnation of House Dems (too gutless to do what they think is right, even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Second it is a serious condemnation of Nancy Pelosi (too ineffective to whip her troops into line even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Third, it casts serious doubt on the wisdom of the deal that McCain is falsely accused of scuttling. If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need "cover" from House Republicans.

Fourth, the "cover" argument shows what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. The Dems complain (preposterously) that McCain has riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around. Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking why Obama hasn't helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Dems.

There's a reason why this question isn't being asked. Obama is lightweight from whom leadership is not, and should not, be expected.

But what about when Obama was one of the few against Iraq, when every one else was brainwashed? Who's the follower then?

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by GoS

But what about when Obama was one of the few against Iraq, when every one else was brainwashed? Who's the follower then?

right! .

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

right! .

Even there, Obama is still following McCain in that he ultimately is no longer promising withdrawal. First, he wanted immediate withdrawal, the he wanted to leave detachments. Then, he couldn't promise withdrawal in his first term. He was against the surge and said we'd lost. Then he wanted to pull out and go back in if we're needed. Then he said the surge worked and still can't promise withdrawal. Now that Bush and the Iraqi government have been negotiating a pull-out, it's almost a non-issue. It's hard to count how many positions Obama has had on this issue.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Even there, Obama is still following McCain in that he ultimately is no longer promising withdrawal. First, he wanted immediate withdrawal, the he wanted to leave detachments. Then, he couldn't promise withdrawal in his first term. He was against the surge and said we'd lost. Then he wanted to pull out and go back in if we're needed. Then he said the surge worked and still can't promise withdrawal. Now that Bush and the Iraqi government have been negotiating a pull-out, it's almost a non-issue. It's hard to count how many positions Obama has had on this issue.

This timetable, might I add, looks kind of like what Obama had been saying. And how can you win a battle like this? How would you define victory or our goal?

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by GoS

This timetable, might I add, looks kind of like what Obama had been saying. And how can you win a battle like this? How would you define victory or our goal?

The difference is that you cannot set a timetable when we're not winning. Once the surge started to work and we were able to let the Iraqi's secure more of their territory without our help, a timetable doesn't have the drastic repercussions it would if we were getting killed all the time, like we were. Defining victory now is easy. When the generals agree that the Iraqi security forces can secure an area without our help, like the recent turnover of Anbar Province, then that is how you win a battle. When Iraq can secure their own country without our help, then victory is finally achieved. They are very close to this goal, the Bush administration was estimating that it would be won inside of two years. As much as this was a stupid idea, pulling out too early has horrific consequences.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The difference is that you cannot set a timetable when we're not winning. Once the surge started to work and we were able to let the Iraqi's secure more of their territory without our help, a timetable doesn't have the drastic repercussions it would if we were getting killed all the time, like we were. Defining victory now is easy. When the generals agree that the Iraqi security forces can secure an area without our help, like the recent turnover of Anbar Province, then that is how you win a battle. When Iraq can secure their own country without our help, then victory is finally achieved. They are very close to this goal, the Bush administration was estimating that it would be won inside of two years. As much as this was a stupid idea, pulling out too early has horrific consequences.

I doubt that, and disagree with, anyone who says that we can pull right out of Iraq. That would be the dumbest thing ever. Second to that might be staying. Our troops are on the line, aren't even being protected to the best of our ability, doing other peoples work. We need to send a sign to the Iraqis that shows we will not stay for ever, aren't split down the middle, we mean what we say. Right now they have a black check from a divided, indecisive world power to fight their civil war. If we just leave, however, things will get worse than they were before, and our drawing Al-Queda there and re-igniting tensions did not help. Do we even know why we are there, other than we were misled by, and lied to by, the Bush Admin & Co?

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by GoS

I doubt that, and disagree with, anyone who says that we can pull right out of Iraq. That would be the dumbest thing ever. Second to that might be staying. Our troops are on the line, aren't even being protected to the best of our ability, doing other peoples work. We need to send a sign to the Iraqis that shows we will not stay for ever, aren't split down the middle, we mean what we say. Right now they have a black check from a divided, indecisive world power to fight their civil war. If we just leave, however, things will get worse than they were before, and our drawing Al-Queda there and re-igniting tensions did not help. Do we even know why we are there, other than we were misled by, and lied to by, the Bush Admin & Co?

That's just it, we were basically there to redesign the middle east. I don't think Bush "lied" per se. If you watch this:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/9596/meet-...97#x-4,vclip,1

Bill Clinton makes the exact same case as Bush for war in Iraq. No one lied except Saddam, the entire world was being lied to by Saddam Hussein. He was pretending to be much bigger than he was. The Russians, British and French all had the same intelligence we did.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

That's just it, we were basically there to redesign the middle east. I don't think Bush "lied" per se. If you watch this:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/9596/meet-...97#x-4,vclip,1

Bill Clinton makes the exact same case as Bush for war in Iraq. No one lied except Saddam, the entire world was being lied to by Saddam Hussein. He was pretending to be much bigger than he was. The Russians, British and French all had the same intelligence we did.

Bush lied about there being WMD's, which Hussein denied, by the way, and gave that "intlligence" and the faked letter from Haboush (I can't remember how to really spell his name, ) to the others to win support.

It would have been nice to have known what we were getting into before hand. There were none of the fabled tries between Iraq and 911, there were no WMD's, and Saddam Hussein was not being too much of a threat. There is a mass of evidence pointing to this coming from everyone from journalists to McClellan. Dick Cheney said that invading Iraq would be a "quagmire." See, I can throw quotes back too.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Even there, Obama is still following McCain in that he ultimately is no longer promising withdrawal. First, he wanted immediate withdrawal, the he wanted to leave detachments. Then, he couldn't promise withdrawal in his first term. He was against the surge and said we'd lost. Then he wanted to pull out and go back in if we're needed. Then he said the surge worked and still can't promise withdrawal. Now that Bush and the Iraqi government have been negotiating a pull-out, it's almost a non-issue. It's hard to count how many positions Obama has had on this issue.

Well I do agree that if we hadn't started this war in the first place... many politicians including McCain wouldn't have had to flip flop like they have over the past 6 years... and i'm guessing we'd have about 700 million more in our treasury.. from not spending it on a meaningless war...

Kind of like deciding whether you are going to debate or not.. then disguise it like it's for the country's welfare...pretend like it's not political even though it's pure grandstanding...

yeah i guess politicians do that...